Well the old arguments and misunderstandings persist.
"Priest" of course, derives from πρεσβυτερος, but translates "ιερευς", and from this equivocation a lot of problems have arisen. Presbyters are mentioned in Paul. And IHS is THE priest, as Hebrews, which some of us read this time of year, makes abundantly clear.
I'm guessing that so far we are together. Where we part would be that we would say more or less, that the Church has a priestly function which is exercised first by the whole Church together. A clear example of this is found in part of our Good Friday service. We pray, at length, for the whole world, "applying", so to speak, the sacrifice of Christ to the world's need. Clergy and laity together intercede, in and through Christ's self-oblation.
And we further differ in that, as I see it, we take seriously the Pauline division of parts and functions within the body. So within the priestly function of the entire Church there are "members" who uniquely exercise the priestly function.
Chief among these is the "overseer," the επι-σκοπος. Simply because the episkopos can't be everywhere at once, bishops delegated some of their functions to presbyteroi, in particular their functions of preaching, teaching, and presiding at sacramental worship.
But the priesthood is first Christ's and therefore the Church's. So we would say a "priest" in the modern usage is a priest NOT instead of Christ but because of Christ and his priesthood and "in" Christ.
James himself suggests a limitation of sacramental function when he says, "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord...". So I sent a friend who has a concussion to an "elder" for anointing yesterday.
I happen to know this particular friar pretty well, and he would be the first to deny loudly that HE himself has any healing powers of his own. It's not about him. It's about the KIND of member of the body which he is.
I get that that is not your view. And I am not arguing so much as sketching the sort of thinking from which our view arises. And I'll further cop to some (many?) in the Catholic Church (including some priests) failing to keep in mind that priestly function is theirs only the way sunlight belongs to a window -- except that this sun is always shining.
As for "titles", I don't know what to say. I call the friar whose office is across the hall "Your Luminosity" and he calls me "Dog-boy." And then we laugh.
If it proper for a priest to titled “father” then it must first be shown that anyone in the Christian church of the NT was a priest. None are so termed. None had the title of “father” nor any other title.
No Reverend Peter or Elder Timothy or Deacon or Most Holy Father....